Relativity is a useful mathematical tool but a totally flawed physical concept. The biggest error is in the assertion that there is no absolute frame of reference. Granted one has never been identified but you must remember that "Absence of Evidence" is NOT "Evidence of Absence". That is on the order of trying to prove a negative.

The fact is that Special Relativity as applied is in fact based on absolute motion not merely relative velocity between frames. The difference is the motion is always relative to some inertia rest frame. An inertial rest frame is where there is no acceleration but possibly a constant or uniform velocity, not necessarily some absolute rest universally.

This can be emphasized by the following example:

Given three clocks "A", "B" & "C", all at common rest and synchronized, then accelerate clocks "A" & "B" away from "C" at equal rates and for equal duration but in opposite directions, until they both achieve a velocity of 0.866c relative to "C". Mathematically both "A" & "B" will now have a dilated tick rate relative to "C" of t' = t * (1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5 and both "A" & "B" are now ticking only once for every two ticks of "C". Gamma = 2.0.

However, what is important here is the fact that "A" & "B" have a relative velocity between themselves but there is no time dilation between them and they remain synchronized. The dilation is between their velocity to the common rest frame and not as a function of relative velocity between clocks. It makes no difference had "A" & "B" been launched in a co-moving direction and hence having had no relative velocity between them. Relative velocity between clocks is not relevant to time dilation. Only actual motion relative to an inertial rest frame is.

Time dilation is clearly a function of "Actual Velocity" generated by an acceleration period and not merely "Relative Velocity" generated between observers by actual velocity of one observer. For it is ONLY the accelerated observer that has an actual velocity change universally to the reference frame, that suffers time dilation.

The hypothetical or mathematical assertion regarding each observer Sees, Percieves or Observer the other as being time dilated is irrelevant to the physical reality. "Appearances" during relative velocity are not the physical reality. Both may "Appear" dilated due to the illusion of motion but only the most accelerated clock will be emperically permanently dilated relative to the other on final analysis in a common rest frame.

Indeed Einstein's relative velocity view generates reciprocity, that is the situation where both clocks are ticking slower than the other. A clearly impossible condition, not merely" a "Counter Intuitive" one. This fact prompted the well known "Twin Paradox" scenario.

The "Twin Paradox" is where one twin stays on Earth while the other goes into space and travels at relavistic velocities to return and find he is younger but then trying to explain why the Earth bound twin isn't younger since he had the same relative velocity.

This conundrum was resolved by asserting that the travelling twin broke the symmetry by "Switching Frames". "Frame Switching" is a clever word game to not emphasize the fact that to "Switch Frames" one must accelerate and achieve an "Actual Velocity" change universally.

Another favorite bragging right of relativist is GPS but it is a bag of worms when it comes to relativity. Many claim it is proof of relativity that both General Relativity and Special Relativity must be used to get GPS to function.

Others claim since orbit is a form of rotation that it is not possible to apply Special Relativity since you are under constant acceleration and hence not in an inertial reference frame. Yet orbit is a form of free fall and normal accelerating free fall is considered an inertial condition.

The simple fact is that GPS does not use Special Relativity but uses Lorentz Relativity. The difference is Lorentz Relativity is an absolute motion concept and employs what may be called "Common Locally Preferred Absolute Rest Reference Frames". This is not some universal absolute rest frame but a reference which cannot be reversed.

That is you cannot assert the inertial motion of a clock is also at rest. In SR you can switch views and assert that either clock in inertial motion is at rest and it is the other that has motion. That results in the untenable reciprocity where each clock then must run slower than the other simultaneously. In Lorentz Relativity you cannot switch views one clock has actual motion and the other clock is always at rest.

This is achieved in GPS by using what is called the Earth Center Inertial (ECI) Frame. Gps computes orbit velocity from the perspective of the center of the earth and you cannot then claim that the satellite is at rest and the center of the earth has motion. The same mathematical formula is used in Lorentz Relativity as Special Relativity to compute the time dilation affect but the affect is based on the satellite's "Actual Orbit Velocity" not some relative velocity between it and surface clocks.

A review of potential relative velocity views demonstrates the falicy of Special Relativty in GPS.

Using simplified estimating procedures due to the minimal velocities involved.:

GPS orbiting satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock at the equator has a rotational velocity of (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles.

You cannot simply use direct relative velocity because it is constantly changing since the orbiting satelites are not geostationary relative to the surface. If they were geostationary then there would be no relative velocity between clocks.

Therefore the only relative velocity that one might consider would be the differential between their respective rotational velocities. That is relative velocity could be considered V3 = V1 - V2 = 3,874.5 m/s - 463.8 m/s = 3,410.7 m/s. Applying Special Relativity one would get:

Time loss due to orbit velocity is 8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or -7.2 micro-seconds per day. This happens to be the correct value found emperically to satisfy GPS requirements.

It should be noted that surface velocity is not considered directly but at the equator would be: (463.8 m/s) / c = 1.546E-6, squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12.

Time loss due to surface velocity would be 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.1 micro-second per day only 1.4% of the actual emperical amount.

Further that due to the oblate sphereoid shape of the planet it has been found that at sea level over the Eath's surface there is no time dilation affect since General Relativity and Velocity affects are equal, opposite and cancel.

So there is a complete disagreement between experts regarding GPS and relativity. What is known is that computing orbit velocity from the ECI frame works and any computation of relative velocity between orbit and surface clocks doesn't.

Another bone of contention is how Einstien inconsistantly manipulates physical reality. Special Relativity has you belive that a common relative velocity cause generates two distinctly different physical results as a matter of observer perspective.

Physical reality is not a matter of perception. It is either real or simply an illusion of motion. Given one clock remaining at rest and another accelerated to some relative velocity to it then Special Relativity claims that the traveling clock is time dilated, that is it is ticking slower than the resting clock. That claim appears to be founded by emperical data.

However, Special Relativity then has you believe that from the perspective of the traveling clock that the clock ticks in synch with the resting clock such that distance the traveling clock goes is foreshortened by Lorentz Contraction.

There is simply no physical data to support the concept of spatial contraction as a function of relative velocity. Further it is completely without logic that a common cause would generate two distinctly different physical results based on observer perspective.

The fact that we view relative velocity as being symmetrical (i.e. - if I am moving away from you at 30 Mph then you are moving away from me at 30 Mph) is rational and certainly true based on a common universal time standard.

However, one must recall that velocity is a computed value based on the ratio of two physical parameters - change in distance per change in time. v = ds / dt. And when you have a moving frame where the clock is dilated t2 does not equal t1. It can be shown that given t2 is dilated and equals 0.5t1, where t1 = 1.0 and ds = 1.0 that v1 = ds /t1 = 1.0/1.0 = 1.0 and v2 = ds / t2 = 1.0 / 0.5 = 2.0.

In other words while our senses are justified regarding relative velocity being symmetrical it is based on a common universal standard time base but what relativity shows is that time varies as a function of absolute motion.

Therefore actual relative velocity may be symmetrical universally but individual observers will compute different relative velocities once motion begins to affect tick rates of respective clocks.

Realizing this one can now see that what Special Relativity does is switch time standards between frames to mathematically justifiy claiming Lorentz Contraction. But the fact is if the clock is physically dilated the trip time is only correct if distance does not change.

This issue can be equated to driving between two cities known to be 60 miiles apart. The car speed-o-meter is broken, the o-dometer works fine but his watch batteries are low and he doesn't realize that his watch is only ticking at 1/2 the normal rate.

As he leaves the driver calls a friend and tells him I'm on my way, see you shortly. One half hour later according to the driver he arrives and exclaims "Wow" 60 miles in 30 minutes, I averaged 120 Mph!. His friend objects and says no you took an hour and therefore you averaged 60 Mph.

Just because the drivers watch was dilated does not mean distance between cities contracted. If you retain the physical dilated tick rate of a moving clock in all frames then Lorentz Contraction cannot be real.

To accept Special Relativity one must accept many absurd consequences.

1 - Assume you are travelling at 0.5c away from Earth at a distance measured by you to be one million miles. Which means monitors on Earth see you as being 1,154,700 miles away. You now accelerate instantly to 0.55c away from earth. You will measure distance to now only be 964,365 miles.

You accelerated AWAY from Earth but got 35,635 miles closer!!!!.

Even more bizzar is if you fire a high velocity weapon in the direction of travel. That is you remain 1,000,000 miles from Earth but the bullet is now only 964,365 miles from Earth but you and your bullet are both still in the same physical spacecraft.

Even more bizzar is the claimed velocity addition view from Earth where you are travelling at 0.5c and the bullet is traveling at 0.05c relative to you from your view but according to Earth the bullet is only traveling w = (u+v) / (1 +uv/c) = (0.5+.05) / (1 + 0.5 * .05) = 0.536c relative to Earth or only 0.0365c relative to you.

All of which generates numerous different velocities hence different clock tick rates simultaneously for the same physical clocks, all as a function of observer perception.

That cannot describe anything physical.

2 - Assume the accelerations above occurs over 1 hour and assume you are measuring distance to Alpha Centuri as you are passing Earth toward Alpha Centuri and accelerate. During that hour you will have traveled 0.525 light hours. Not enough to take into account for the point being made. Such that before acceleration you would have been 4.3 lyr*0.866 = 3.72 lyr away by your measurement. After acceleration you will be 3.59 lyr away.

That is 0.128 lyr change in distance in just one hour! 144 times faster than light (FTL) !!

Relativists produce mathematics to show that this affect is hidden behind an Event Horizon and claim Special Relativity is salvaged. That is not the case. It is an entirely different issue to say something is not seen than it is to say it doesn't happen. That is their math doesn't preclude the FTL event.

That appears on the surface to be complete nonsense. They would have you believe that you would no longer see Alpha Centuri approaching based on the light at the physical location you are at. What it would really mean is that distance didn't actually contract.

They argue that it doesn't count because it involves acceleration and hence is no longer Special Relativity. That doesn't count either. Special Relativity asserts that nothing can travel FTL, not that nothing can be seen to travel FTL.

They argue that Special Relativity only says nothing can travel through local space FTL and that a change in space is not limited. But it is the very math of Special Relativity that is generating the FTL event. This arguement also leads to the following issue:

3 - We currently see the universe as undergoing an accelerated expansion where objects are approaching v = c. If you believe in Special Relativity and Lorentz Contraction then these remote objects that appear to be accelerating away due to spatial expansion MUST then be decelerating so as to cause an inverse Lorentz Contraction.

4 - Numerous objects have been observed and measured to be traveling FTL in the universe. But relativists have conviently generated math to show that along a narrow line-of-sight path that subluminal motion can appear to be FTL.

As a result all such observations are ignored inspite of the fact that it has been shown that less than 1% of such objects show either red or blue shift meaning they are not moving in the line of sight. Indeed they are cited as having "Proper Motion" that is orthogonal to the line of sight.

5 - It is claimed that some things can move FTL as long as no information is transfered. That too is just a giant Texas Two Step because it is ludricrus to suggest that Particle Entanglement does not require transfer of information. For one particle to change in synch with another remote particle at superluminal rates still requires information pass from one particle to another.

SUMMARY:

While I certainly do not proclaim to have the anwers, I do believe these are important questions and issues which have not and are not properly addressed today by science.

One thought which I suggest should be pursued is that light is not actually invariant. That is the illusion of invariance is being created by a misunderstanding about the production of light.

For example we know that Cerenkov Radiation produces light and it is caused by charged particles moving FTL in a medium such as water. Is it not possible that photons are then the by product of something moving FTL in the vacuum of space?

Of course it is and if that were true then each observer having motion relative to this spatial background adds or subtracts their velocity so as to generate photons at v = c relative to their absolute motion.

If that is the case then every observer is viewing a different photon produced as a function of quantum energy from the same source along some carrier signal moving FTL and not the same photon moving at some invariant velocity.

That view suggests such carrier might also explain Particle Entanglement.

Why do so many people seem to have it in for special relativity? Sure, the consequences are bizarre, but that's how physics goes.
No-one is claiming it is fundamentally correct (heck it was very quickly surplanted by GR), and there are some interesting high-energy theories which explore things like the possibility that Lorentz invariance is only an emergent low-energy phenomenon, or that the space-time symmetries of relativity are part of a larger group of symmetries, but most of the things you seem worried about are pretty solid.

"For example we know that Cerenkov Radiation produces light and it is caused by charged particles moving FTL in a medium such as water. Is it not possible that photons are then the by product of something moving FTL in the vacuum of space?"

Cerenkov radiation is produced by the electromagnetic interactions of those fast-moving charged particles with matter. I don't know what you're suggesting by saying "photons are then the by product of something moving FTL in the vacuum of space". Do you mean all photons? What about the ones produced by regular processes?

Relativity is a useful mathematical tool but a totally flawed physical concept.

Click to expand...

Waffle. Let's ignore such twaddle.

Your first example:

Given three clocks "A", "B" & "C", all at common rest and synchronized, then accelerate clocks "A" & "B" away from "C" at equal rates and for equal duration but in opposite directions, until they both achieve a velocity of 0.866c relative to "C". Mathematically both "A" & "B" will now have a dilated tick rate relative to "C" of t' = t * (1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5 and both "A" & "B" are now ticking only once for every two ticks of "C". Gamma = 2.0.

Click to expand...

This is true only in the frame of C. You immediately go on to make a mistake, of course:

However, what is important here is the fact that "A" & "B" have a relative velocity between themselves but there is no time dilation between them and they remain synchronized.

Click to expand...

Completely and utterly wrong!

Relative to A, B is moving away from A at 0.990 c. Somebody in the rest frame of A sees B's clock ticking slower than A's by the appropriate Lorentz factor for the relative speed given.

And, of course, somebody in the rest from of B sees A's clock ticking slower than B's by the same factor.

The dilation is between their velocity to the common rest frame and not as a function of relative velocity between clocks.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

I'm surprised you still haven't bothered to learn what the theory says, even after all this time.

It makes no difference had "A" & "B" been launched in a co-moving direction and hence having had no relative velocity between them.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. If they were launched in the same direction, then the velocity of A relative to B would be zero and so A and B would see each other's clocks ticking at the same rate. Only relative velocity matters. That's why it's called "relativity".

Relative velocity between clocks is not relevant to time dilation.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. It is ONLY relative velocity that is relevant (in special relativity).

Only actual motion relative to an inertial rest frame is.

Click to expand...

In your example, A, B and C are all in inertial frames.

Time dilation is clearly a function of "Actual Velocity" generated by an acceleration period and not merely "Relative Velocity" generated between observers by actual velocity of one observer.

Click to expand...

Still wrong after all these years.

It matters not a single jot who accelerated and who did not, as long as we're looking at clock rates when the clocks are travelling at constant relative velocity. That's what special relativity is all about.

NO EXPERIMENT you can do will EVER show which clock accelerated and which did not, if all you have to go on is two clocks moving at constant speed relative to one another.

If you think you have a counter-example, feel free to provide it. You don't, of course, and you never have.

The hypothetical or mathematical assertion regarding each observer Sees, Percieves or Observer the other as being time dilated is irrelevant to the physical reality.

Click to expand...

Note carefully: when I write "A see's B's clock..." above, I mean "the REALITY of B's clock, according to an observer riding with A, is...". There is no distinction between what you call "appearance" and "reality".

I note that you often get confused about the "seeing" process, which may involve light travelling from one place to another. The light travel time in such a signalling process is, as I have pointed out to you carefully time and again, is a completely separate issue from relativistic time dilation. In what I've said above, light travel times are assumed to have been factored out already.

"Appearances" during relative velocity are not the physical reality. Both may "Appear" dilated due to the illusion of motion but only the most accelerated clock will be emperically permanently dilated relative to the other on final analysis in a common rest frame.

Click to expand...

You're just NEVER going to understand relativity, are you MacM? You don't actually WANT to learn. You never have.

Indeed Einstein's relative velocity view generates reciprocity, that is the situation where both clocks are ticking slower than the other. A clearly impossible condition, not merely" a "Counter Intuitive" one.

Click to expand...

Meh. Your faulty "common sense" does not override a proven physical theory, tested over a period of 100 years. Your dictates as to what is and is not an impossible condition are worthless rubbish based on your living in a fantasy land of your own mind. They always have been.

The "Twin Paradox" is where one twin stays on Earth while the other goes into space and travels at relavistic velocities to return and find he is younger but then trying to explain why the Earth bound twin isn't younger since he had the same relative velocity.

This conundrum was resolved by asserting that the travelling twin broke the symmetry by "Switching Frames". "Frame Switching" is a clever word game to not emphasize the fact that to "Switch Frames" one must accelerate and achieve an "Actual Velocity" change universally.

Click to expand...

Since you can't cope with the constant-velocity conditions of simple special realtivity, the likelihood of you ever getting your mind around acceleration in relativity is essentially zero. I won't even bother addressing this again.

Moving on to the GPS system, since you can't understand basic special relativity, the chances of you even getting started on general relativity are even less than you comprehending the effects of accelerations in the twin paradox. There's no point going over that old ground again, either.

Another bone of contention is how Einstien inconsistantly manipulates physical reality. Special Relativity has you belive that a common relative velocity cause generates two distinctly different physical results as a matter of observer perspective.

Click to expand...

This is utterly false, once again.

Any EVENT that occurs according to one observer in spacetime must occur according to ALL observers. In other words, "distinctly different physics results" are impossible in relativity. Your claims to the contrary are based on misconceptions and/or lies.

I've had enough for now. All this is old stuff, carefully explained to you piece by piece in excrutiating detail years ago.

You will never learn. You do not want to learn. I've had enough.

You should have stopped with your goodbye thread, MacM. I can't feel sorry for your (wilful?) stupidity, even if I feel sorry about your physical state of health.

Why do so many people seem to have it in for special relativity? Sure, the consequences are bizarre, but that's how physics goes.
No-one is claiming it is fundamentally correct (heck it was very quickly surplanted by GR), and there are some interesting high-energy theories which explore things like the possibility that Lorentz invariance is only an emergent low-energy phenomenon, or that the space-time symmetries of relativity are part of a larger group of symmetries, but most of the things you seem worried about are pretty solid.

"For example we know that Cerenkov Radiation produces light and it is caused by charged particles moving FTL in a medium such as water. Is it not possible that photons are then the by product of something moving FTL in the vacuum of space?"

Cerenkov radiation is produced by the electromagnetic interactions of those fast-moving charged particles with matter. I don't know what you're suggesting by saying "photons are then the by product of something moving FTL in the vacuum of space". Do you mean all photons? What about the ones produced by regular processes?

Click to expand...

Surprisingly a good post. You allow for some give and take unlike some others here - LOL.

All I'm saying is we can't rule out the fact that we don't know everything and there may well be a far more rational explanation for the apparent invariance than the one suggested by relativity.

This is true only in the frame of C. You immediately go on to make a mistake, of course:

Click to expand...

The mistake I'm afraid is yours. You choose to ignore that "A" & "B" will remain synchronized in any common frame not just the "C" frame. The magnitude of the dilation is only relative to the "C" frame but the absolute tick rate is the same in all frames. That is where you seem to get lost.

A physically dilated clock is dilated period. The "Apparent" dilation caused by observer perception during relative motion is not at issue. Only the "Actual" permanent loss of accumulated time. Your critique doesn't address that fact.

Completely and utterly wrong! You still want to play "Illusion of Motion" games. Please post one emperical case where two clocks accelerated as specified do not remain synchronized when compared in a common rest frame after having had relative velocity as specified.

For example, relative to A, B is moving away from A at 0.990 c. Somebody in the rest frame of A sees B's clock ticking slower than A's by the appropriate Lorentz factor for the relative speed given

And, of course, somebody in the rest from of B sees A's clock ticking slower than B's by the same factor.

Click to expand...

Can't let you get away with this dodge once again. We don't care about what another observer "Sees" while in relative motion. The only real time dilation is that demonstrated by permanent loss of accumulated time when compared in a common rest frame. Anythingelse is mere perception not physical change. Otherwise you are supporting the losing arguement that two clocks each tick slower than the other physically at the same time.

I'm surprised you still haven't bothered to learn what the theory says, even after all this time.

Click to expand...

Actually I seem to understand the theory much better than you might like to admit. You are the one that chooses to answer by citing things not relevant to the issue. i.e. - The "Appearance" of dilation between observers DURING relative velocity vs actually addressing the emperical physical dilation of clocks supported by hard data.

Wrong again. If they were launched in the same direction, then the velocity of A relative to B would be zero and so A and B would see each other's clocks ticking at the same rate. Only relative velocity matters. That's why it's called "relativity".

Click to expand...

Wrong again. (These words come very easy to you don't they? Well your reply ignores the fact that I made the very same point. There is no relative velocity is such a case and as would be expected they remain in synch. But given the same acceleration but in opposite directions they have relative velocity and remain in synch.

But you choose to ignore that they have the same dliation relative to their initial common inertial rest frame regardless of their relative velocity. So relative velocity between clocks has NO affect on these clocks. In fact one can move clock "C" and immediately see that the clocks accumulated time is relative to their initial inertial rest frame and not C's frame.

I think we all know that is the case. The question becomes "Why have you omitted the term "REST" from my statement. Please post any data showing that clocks "A" & "B" synchronization are affected by their relative velocity or lack thereof in the scenario presented. Don't refer to what observers "See" during relative motion but emperically once compared in a common rest frame after having been accelerated either with or without relative velocity to each other.

Your arguement that everything is based on relative velocity between clocks just isn't supported by any physical evidence.

It matters not a single jot who accelerated and who did not, as long as we're looking at clock rates when the clocks are travelling at constant relative velocity. That's what special relativity is all about.

Click to expand...

False. It is only what you want to talk about. But what math predicts during relative velocity is inconsistant with what emperical data supports as being physically real. It is the later that is at issue.

What "A" "Thinks" is "B'" tick rate and vice versa simply do not pan out regardless of how you terminate the scenario.

I can also accelerate "A" to some velocity for some period and then decelerate it to a common rest. Such that "A" had relative velocity to both "B" and "C". I can then accelerated "B" under the same conditions and terminate the scenario with "A" and "B" being side by side at rest in a common frame with "C".

In this case both "A" and "B" have had relative velocity to each other even though they move in a common vector. But they still have the same dilation realtive to "C" and while temporarily out of synch are now once again back in synch.

NO EXPERIMENT you can do will EVER show which clock accelerated and which did not, if all you have to go on is two clocks moving at constant speed relative to one another.

Click to expand...

Correct and just how do you think that justifies your position? It doesn't. Unless you know the acceleration histories and the fact of synchronization at some point the accumulated times have absolutely no meaning.

Just how in your mind does "Absence of Evidence" become "Evidence of Absence"? It doesn't.

Note carefully: when I write "A see's B's clock..." above, I mean "the REALITY of B's clock, according to an observer riding with A, is...". There is no distinction between what you call "appearance" and "reality".

Click to expand...

Therein lies your problem. You have never learned that wearing red colored glasses doesn't mean the universe is red. Just as an illusionist cutting a person in half doesn't mean the person was cut in half. Your assertion that what one "Percieves, "Sees", "Observers" while in relative motion is physical reality is simply completely false. Just as spinning around on one foot does not mean the entire universe is rotating.

I note that you often get confused about the "seeing" process, which may involve light travelling from one place to another. The light travel time in such a signalling process is, as I have pointed out to you carefully time and again, is a completely separate issue from relativistic time dilation. In what I've said above, light travel times are assumed to have been factored out already.

Click to expand...

You do like to assert that you have corrected me but generally you have either ignored the actual issue and responded with something irrelevant or just state the obvious for which I have made no objection.

This is no exception. Where in your reply do you post any emperical data to show you are correct and I am actually wrong? You don't. Why? Because you can't.

All you can do is mis-state the issue or ignore what I have already said and pretend that you are enlightening me on things I not already know but have clearly already stated.

The issue has noting to do with light speed, simultaniety, etc. It only has to do with the loss of accumulated time by ONE clock. The clock that has accelerated relative to the initial inertial reference frame and NEVER loss of accumulted time by the resting clock.

You're just NEVER going to understand relativity, are you MacM? You don't actually WANT to learn. You never have.

Click to expand...

Again your making such assinine assertions does not make it so. The truth is self evident in the presentation and responses above. As of yet in this thread you have not properly addressed even one issue. You choose to simply make statements irrelevant to the issue raised or to cast innuendo about me.

It doesn't work James R. You need to do better or you lose. People are going to see through you here.

Meh. Your faulty "common sense" does not override a proven physical theory, tested over a period of 100 years. Your dictates as to what is and is not an impossible condition are worthless rubbish based on your living in a fantasy land of your own mind. They always have been.

Click to expand...

The only fantasy world is one where you assert reciprocity is a real physical parameter. Please post even ONE case of emperical data to support your position. Surely in the 100 years of data you have such proof don't you?

Since you can't cope with the constant-velocity conditions of simple special realtivity, the likelihood of you ever getting your mind around acceleration in relativity is essentially zero. I won't even bother addressing this again.

Click to expand...

I should imagine you might avoid further discussion because I have shown many times over that I full well know SR and know acceleration is not normally dealt with there but also know it can and has been.

Moving on to the GPS system, since you can't understand basic special relativity, the chances of you even getting started on general relativity are even less than you comprehending the effects of accelerations in the twin paradox. There's no point going over that old ground again, either.

Click to expand...

Not surprised you don't want to attack this one. It has do many pitfalls for relativists.

Do you deny that many experts claim both SR and GR are employed? What do you claim?

Do you deny that just as many experts claim SR cannot be applied because it is a rotating system? What do you claim?

Do you deny that some experts say orbit is constant acceleration hence non-inertial while others claim that orbit is in free-fall and accelearting free-fall is also considered inertial? What do you claim?

Do you want to assert that according to SR we can claim the GPS satellite is at rest and the ECI frame has motion? If so pleae demonstrate for us just how that works. What do you claim?

No the fact is I know a hell of a lot more about GPS than apparently you do. If not then show where I'm in error mathematically or in terms of the physical process. Your simple negative innmuendo doesn't cut it.

Any EVENT that occurs according to one observer in spacetime must occur according to ALL observers. In other words, "distinctly different physics results" are impossible in relativity. Your claims to the contrary are based on misconceptions and/or lies.

Click to expand...

Sorry James R you are wrong. Given clocks "A" and "B" are synchronized and at common rest and where "A" is accelerted away to some inertial velocity you claim that "A" now ticks slower than "B" by the Gamma ratio. That view is supported by loss of accumulated time by clock "A"

The inverse view from "A" that "B" is ticking slower than "A" is not supported by emperical data and would be shear physical nonsense. It is nothing more than a temporary illusion of motion - not physically real.

But what now happens is SR asserts that since "Relative Velocity" is symmetrical:

v = ds /dt, then ds = v * dt and since "A" accumulated less time then distance forshortened by gamma. That little Texas Two Step only works if ta and tb have a common tick rate.

The fact is we have already specificed that ta is dilated relative to tb and if you retain that dilation between frames then from "A" frame (where tb = 1.0, ta = tb/2 = 0.5) and ds =1.0:

va = ds/ta = 1.0 /0.5 = 2.0

vb = ds/tb = 1.0 /1.0 = 1.0

You should remember that while our common sense is that relative velocity IS symmetrical and is correct in an absolute universe and is generally true at subluminal velocites but velocity is a computed value of the ratio of two physical properties - delta distance per delta time and when one frame has a dilated tick rate it's time is not the same and to assert it is by arbitrarily specificying relative velocity is symmetrical is the physical error.

The simple fact is if a clock is tick dilated as claimed then the observer in that frame will compute a different velocity, distance does not and cannot change because the accumulated time on the traveling clock is only properly accounted for if distance remains fixed. - NO Loretnz Contraction.

If you disagree then please post hard data or emperical proof of Lorentz Contraction.

I've had enough for now. All this is old stuff, carefully explained to you piece by piece in excrutiating detail years ago.

You will never learn. You do not want to learn. I've had enough.

You should have stopped with your goodbye thread, MacM. I can't feel sorry for your stupidity, even if I feel sorry about your physical state of health.

Click to expand...

Ah - but because of my condition I had to give you one more chance to show your ignorance on these issues. Not that I am claiming I am absolutely right but you clearly have not addressed even one issue properly and your attacks on my intelligence simply doesn't cut it. It shows how shallow you really are and how you prefer to rely on appeal to authority, dogma, unsupported innuendo and rhetoric.

Like you under the circumstances I have no interest in re-hashing these things further. I will only respond to any posts that actually contribute something further.

I think (hope) the un-entrenched members here might wonder why you have not taken the opportunity to show specifically where I am wrong on GPS or the (5) bizzar consequences of relativity rather than just skip over them.

You should either admit they are true or explain why you can't properly explain them away. At this juncture James R your responses seem rather disassociated from the facts of the thread.

The mistake I'm afraid is yours. You choose to ignore that "A" & "B" will remain synchronized in any common frame not just the "C" frame.

Click to expand...

When A and B are travelling in different directions they are not in a common frame.

Duh! Such a simple point, yet it escapes you.

The magnitude of the dilation is only relative to the "C" frame but the absolute tick rate is the same in all frames. That is where you seem to get lost.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "absolute tick rate", except in MacM fantasyland.

The "Apparent" dilation caused by observer perception during relative motion is not at issue. Only the "Actual" permanent loss of accumulated time. Your critique doesn't addres that fact.

Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the part where I explicitly discussed your "apparent" vs "reality" fixation. I'm not going to repeat myself.

We are waiting.

Click to expand...

Who? You and the Queen of England?

Actually I seem to nunderstand the theory much better than you might like to admit. You are the one that chooses to answer by citing things not relevant to the issue. i.e. - The "Appearance" of dilation between observers DURING relative velocity vs actually addressing the emperical physical dilation of clocks supported by hard data.

Click to expand...

If you want to compare clocks while not in motion, you'll have to bring them into a common reference frame at some point. You did not specify that you wished to do that in your scenario.

Wrong again. (These words come very easy to you don't they? Well your reply ignores the fact that I made the very same point. There is no relative velocity is such a case and as would be expected they remain in synch.

Click to expand...

Don't be dumb.

Here's an everyday example for you. You (A) and I (B)jump in our cars parked on the street, while your mate Ernie (C) stands and watches. You accelerate to 20 mph and drive East along the street. I accelerate to 20 mph and drive West along the street.

Question: what is your velocity relative to me?

Do you think it is zero? If so, why am I moving away from you?

Wake up, MacM!

1 - Please demonstrate where relative velocity between "A" and "B" in the first case caused them to become dilated relative to each other.

Click to expand...

That's an effect of the fundamental postulates of special relativity, which you say you agree with. If you do not, tell me which of the two postulates is incorrect and why.

Your arguement that everything is based on relative velocity between clocks just isn't supported by the math or any physical evidence.

Click to expand...

Oh, for God's sake!

Not supported by the math, my arse. Don't be an idiot. You know enough of the math of special relativity to know that it absolutely supports time dilation. You even say the math gives correct results.

So why the bullshit? Get real.

False. It is only what you want to talk about. But what math predicts during relative velocity is inconsistant with what emperical data supports as being physically real.

Click to expand...

That's a barefaced lie.

What "A" "Thinks" is "B'" tick rate and vice versa simply do not pan out regardless of how you terminate the scenario.

Click to expand...

"Thinks" has nothing to do with it, as I explained in my previous post. Time for you to do some thinks for yourself. It's never too late to start.

I can also accelerate "A" to some velocity for some period and then decelerate it to a common rest. Such that "A" had relative elocity to both "B" and "C". I can then accelerated "B" under the dame conditions and terminate the scenario with "A" and "B" being side by side at rest in a common frame with "C".

In this case both "A" and "B" have had relative velocity to each other even though they move in a common vector. But they still have the same dilation realtive to "C" and while temporarily out of synch are now once again back in synch.

Click to expand...

This is an entirely different scenario, and the end result would depend on the details of the accelerations etc.

NO EXPERIMENT you can do will EVER show which clock accelerated and which did not, if all you have to go on is two clocks moving at constant speed relative to one another.

Click to expand...

Correct and just how do you think that justifies your postion? It doesn't. Unless you know the acceleration histories and the fact of synchronization at some point the accumulated times have absolutely no meaning.

It is not incumbent upon me or anyone to provide a substitute theory to show the falicy of yours.

Click to expand...

No. You just have to provide some analysis that shows a fallacy. But you're totally unable to do so, and never have been able to over (how long have you been failing to learn this stuff?) 50 years (?).

Therein lies your problem. You have never learned that wearing read colored glasses doesn't mean the universe is red.

Click to expand...

Analogy: You have never learned that if you factor out the red filter on your camera, you're left with a true-colour image.

It's just impossible to get the fact that light travel times are irrelevant to special relativity through your thick skull. I'll no longer bother. You're a waste of my time. I teach relativity to students every year. They all gain a better understanding in a week than you've managed in several years of private tutoring on the forum. Why is that?

Where in your reply do you post any emperical data to show you are correct and I am actually wrong? You don't. Why? Because you can't.

Click to expand...

Because it's a complete waste of time and effort. You can't even comprehend the car example I just gave above. It's not that I haven't tried in the past. It's just that beating your head against a brick wall is useless. I'm smart enough to stop doing it.

As of yet in this thread you have not properly addressed even one issue.

Click to expand...

That's it. This kind of lying and discourtesy is something I will not stand for.

I spent some of my valuable time pointing out to your your basic misconception with your ABC scenario. I explained carefully and clearly where you went wrong. And now you pretend I did not address your problem.

I've had it with you.

We've been at this point before, then you went off for a while. Well, we're back here again, MacM.

When A and B are travelling in different directions they are not in a common frame.

Duh! Such a simple point, yet it escapes you.

Click to expand...

Great now we see your problem. You don't speak or comprehend english. I did not say "A" & "B" were in a common frame - Shsssh. I merely noted that their dilation was linked to the initial inertial common rest frame and not "C" since it had moved.

See what I mean folks about James R's responses. Completely irrelevant.

There is no such thing as "absolute tick rate", except in MacM fantasyland.

Click to expand...

Right it is completely a sound physical view to assert a clock is tick dilated but then ignore that dilation when changing observer view points and to then claim they are ticking the same. That is precisely what SR does. An absolute tick rate merely means if it is dilated in "A's" frame it is dilated in "B's" frame and therefore it's accumulated time at the end of a trip is only correct if Lorentz Contraction is a falicy.

You obviously didn't read the part where I explicitly discussed your "apparent" vs "reality" fixation. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Click to expand...

Oh I read it and took it for what it was worth - ZIP. Anybody thatv asserts what you percieve is physical reality is simple nuts. It is you that refuse to address the issue of wearing red glasses, spinning around on one foot, etc which clarifies the difference between perception and physical reality.

Is the uiverse physically red - NO. Is the universe rotating - NO. Your attitude is a complete failure physically.

Hmmm - You are the one that says ONLY relative velocity between clocks is relevant when my scenario shows that such relative velocity between clocks has no bearing on accumulated time by a clock. The relative velocity is reference to an initial inertial reference frame not other clocks.

What you like to talk about is the illusion of motion perceptions and to claim they are physical reality. You are BADLY mistaken in that view. Remember the red glasses here that analogy definately applies.

Here's an everyday example for you. You (A) and I (B)jump in our cars parked on the street, while your mate Ernie (C) stands and watches. You accelerate to 20 mph and drive East along the street. I accelerate to 20 mph and drive West along the street.

Question: what is your velocity relative to me?

Do you think it is zero? If so, why am I moving away from you?

Wake up, MacM!

Click to expand...

What the hell? Where have I ever made such a stupid claim that relative veloicty would be zero?

See folks how James simply makes up false innuendo. I have never made any such stupid claim.

That's an effect of the fundamental postulates of special relativity, which you say you agree with. If you do not, tell me which of the two postulates is incorrect and why.

Click to expand...

by Macm "“ 1 - Please demonstrate where relative velocity between "A" and "B" in the first case caused them to become dilated relative to each other. ”

Click to expand...

James your reply doesn't address the issue. SR is addressing the "Illusion of motion" time dilation - NOT that emperically demonstrated "Actual" time dilation due to loss of accumulated time when compared in a common rest frame.

You never seem to get on board here. Illusion of motion is not at issue and has nothing to do with the subject matter. Nor does it matter which, if neither or both postulates are flawed. The only thing that matters is the permanent physical results on clocks, not what one might "See" during motion.

The point becomes given the facts of the case one must then go back and figure out why the results are what they are. That fact suggests that the universe functions in fact an absolute way and that the "Apparent" invariance of light is an illusion due to our lack of complete understanding.

Not supported by the math, my arse. Don't be an idiot. You know enough of the math of special relativity to know that it absolutely supports time dilation. You even say the math gives correct results.

So why the bullshit? Get real.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid the bullshit is coming from your side. It is you that want to assert that what we "See" is physical reality and since we might "See" each other as dilated while in motion that it is true. Emperical data does not support that mathematical conclusion.

In the final analysis the only clock dilated is the most accelerated clock. The inherent reciprocity generated in SR and by your view is not physically possible as a reality and is not supported by emperical data.

No. You just have to provide some analysis that shows a fallacy. But you're totally unable to do so, and never have been able to over (how long have you been failing to learn this stuff?) 50 years (?).

Click to expand...

I'm not the one weaving and waffling all around issues here. You haven't addressed the actual isues and want to rather generate strawman arguements making it appear you are in charge and correct. You aren't.

Analogy: You have never learned that if you factor out the red filter on your camera, you're left with a true-colour image.

Click to expand...

Now this is interesting. I state that wearing red colored glasses doesn't make the universe physically red. That it is merely a perception, not the reality. And you come back with this comment??????

Your "True-Color" image is the physical reality I have emphasized and this whole thing runs against your arguement that seeing red means it is red. You have now agreed with me for the first time but are attempting to put me into your view and switch sides. You are losing it James R.

It's just impossible to get the fact that light travel times are irrelevant to special relativity through your thick skull. I'll no longer bother. You're a waste of my time. I teach relativity to students every year. They all gain a better understanding in a week than you've managed in several years of private tutoring on the forum. Why is that?

Click to expand...

I again see the problem. Just because you teach you assume you are correct. Perhaps it is time that you consider that you are teaching bullshit and your students merely are being snowed by it. The entire world once believed the earth was the center of all motion. They once believed the earth was flat.

The fact that you now get them to believe in your bullshit is irrelevant and the fact that I reject it is more likely than not an indication that I'm actually one leg up on the teacher.

It is you that can't learn and must merely recite what others before you have told you.

Because it's a complete waste of time and effort. You can't even comprehend the car example I just gave above. It's not that I haven't tried in the past. It's just that beating your head against a brick wall is useless. I'm smart enough to stop doing it.

Click to expand...

More basless allegations. Your car example was completely off the cart. Utter nonsense and based on nothing I had said. Your assertion that giving emperical facts as proof against me is a wate of time is telling indeed. If you had such data it would end the discussion in your favor. Failure to have ever done so is why we still have this discussion.

That's it. This kind of lying and discourtesy is something I will not stand for.

Click to expand...

Oh. It is OK for you to crete completly off topic responses, to make slanderous comments about my knowledge , call me stupid, etc but for me to point out your failure to actually address issues is lying and disrespectful???

I spent some of my valuable time pointing out to your your basic misconception with your ABC scenario. I explained carefully and clearly where you went wrong. And now you pretend I did not address your problem.

I've had it with you.

Click to expand...

I can't help it if you comments were off point. They were it is as simple as that. You still have not addressed the fact that the only clock to ever be emperically demonstrated to be permanently time dialted is the accelerated clock and never a resting clock. That your repeated assertiions about relativityvdeal only with the "Perception" or illusions of motion and not the physical reality.

MacM:
From what I have read you seem to have overlooked or are flat out ignoring some key points. It seems to me that you are saying that the universe itself has its own "tick rate" or as you worded it, "dilation was linked to initial inertial common rest frame" other than "C". You go on to suggest that relative motion is an illusion of perception. I can only assume (sense it was not stated) that your view of "perceived motion threw space" is actually motion against some sort of internal universal time frame. If this is the case then I can understand why you are so dedicated to discrediting SR seeing as it shot down this idea 100 years ago. Unfortunately you need a better argument that a lack of "complete" understanding because your ideas fall under the same lack of understanding. The only way to measure the effects of time dilation is for points "A" & "B" to return to point "C" (move from a red-shift to a blue-shift). Assuming both "A" & "B" accelerated at the same rate away from "C" and (here's the important part) traveled the same distance. When they return to "C" both "A" & "B's" clocks will read the same time ("C's" clock would be farther ahead). The key here is that "A" & "B" move away from then return to "C" in exact perportions. Any deviation in velocity or distance traveled would translate into all three clocks being different (they must leave and return at the exact same moment). Bottom line, there is no way to measure the effects of time dilation unless the traveler(s) return to the same point in which they left. Please tell me how one could measure the effects of time dilation without returning to "C". What type of signal would you use between points to compare there clocks while in motion?

MacM:
From what I have read you seem to have overlooked or are flat out ignoring some key points. It seems to me that you are
saying that the universe itself has its own "tick rate" or as you worded it, "dilation was linked to initial inertial common rest
frame" other than "C".

Click to expand...

I don't see how you deem an "Initial inertial common rest frame" as being universal. Every concievable inertial velocity is
it's own rest reference. There is nothing universal about that.

Also as has been shown the time dilation encountered by any clock is linked to velocity relative to that rest frame and not
to any other clock and relative velocity to them. It is only relative to the other clock if that clock remains at rest in the
initial common rest frame.

Further it is not a function of relative velocity between clocks because both clocks share a relative velocity and only one
clock has time dilation. As pointed out both clock's tick rates are a function of their motion due to having accellerated
away from the common initial inertial rest reference and it matters not if they co-move or move in opposite directions.
If their acceleration histories are identical then they remain synched - period, even though they will both encounter equal
dilation relative to the common rest reference.

If their acceleration histories are not equal then they both dilated relative to their own new velocity relative to the
rest reference and not relative to relative velocity (or lack thereof) to each other.

You go on to suggest that relative motion is an illusion of perception.

Click to expand...

Untrue. The illusion of motion is the "Apparent" time dilation each observer "Sees" of the others clock while in motion.
That is what James R continues to want to assert is also a physical reality. Their is no illusion of relative motion -
just the illusion that both clocks are ticking slower than the other when in fact emperical data only supports the fact
that the most accelerated clock will become dilated (accumulated less time).

There is NO emperical evidence to support James R's (and Sr's) claim that reciprocity due to symmetrical relative
velocity causes physical time dilation. NONE. In fact as applied SR now precludes reciprocity by rightfully claiming
one clock switched frames (to switch frames you must accelerate), which means you are defining which clock has
"Actually" changed velocity universally and are no longer just predicting time dilation as a function of mere relative
velocity between clocks.

I can only assume (sense it was not stated) that your view of "perceived motion threw
space" is actually motion against some sort of internal universal time frame. If this is the case then I can understand
why you are so dedicated to discrediting SR seeing as it shot down this idea 100 years ago.

Click to expand...

You seem to be of the mind set that Einstien proved the absence of an ether by your comment "perceived motion
through space" Nothing is further from the truth. What he did was showed that one need not mathematically be
concernd about an ether but he clearly believed in a form of ether.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities;
in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for
standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of
parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with
the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of
the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of
theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal
motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for
example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.

Hope this helps clarify matters for you since it is routine for relativists to falsely assert Einstien proved there was no aether
since they don't want to actually consider one. Beware of what today's physicists tell you, think for yourself.

The only way to measure the effects of time dilation is for points "A" & "B" to return to point
"C" (move from a red-shift to a blue-shift). Assuming both "A" & "B" accelerated at the same rate away from "C" and (here's
the important part) traveled the same distance away from "C", when they change direction and return to "C" both "A" & "B's"
clocks will read the same time ("C's" clock would be farther ahead). The key here is that "A" & "B" move away from then
return to "C" in exact perportions. Any deviation in velocity or distance traveled from "C" would translate into all three clocks
being different (they must leave and return at the exact same moment). Bottom line, there is no way to measure the effects
of time dilation unless the traveler(s) return to the same point in which they left.

Click to expand...

You over complicate the issue. "A" & "B" do not have to reverse direction and return to "C". If "C" remained at the initial
inertial common rest reference frame then they need only decelerate equally until they are once again at relative rest to
that frame.

Further one need not do any of that. I can establish a test course in deep space where there are equally spaced mile
markers east and west of "C", with a flight schedule for acceleration by "A" and "B" from some remote points to a start
line for zeroing their clocks and going inertial with equal velocity relative to "C". As they do a light signal is sent to "C"
and a computer knowing the distance of the start line computes and pre-sets the light travel time on C's clock.

Accumulated time data can be transmitted between "A", "B" and "C" as they pass "C" without decelerating. The results
will still be precisely as I have described it in both cases where "A" & "B" co-move over the course past "C" and have no
relative velocity between them or where they move in opposite directions past "C" and have relative velocity. Such
relative velocity has no bearing on the accumulated time on those clocks. Only the motion relative to the inetial inertial
common rest frame does.

It is very important to note that when "A" & "B" are moving in opposite directions and have relative velocity that the "Percieved" dilated tick rates each has of the other and predictions about time that is accumulating are not supported when they pass each other and share "Actual Accumulated Time" data.

Well ... I hardly know what to say. For the record, I didn't join this forum to try and change anyones mind. I came here to exchange ideas. I learned a long time ago that anyone can justify anything in there own minds. No matter what you or I say, in the end its up to the individual. I don't know what kind of skirmishes or debates you have had with other members. All I know is what my equations tell me, this is all any of us can say. I wish I could throw up quote boxes but my "smart phone" isn't that smart.
Your first point implys that I have deemed the "initial inertial common rest frame" as being universal. I do not recall making such a statement. As far as I know, every individual point in the universe is its own point of reference. Though let me ask, if it's a "common rest frame" dosn't that imply some sort of universality?
In your second point I couldn't understand your explanation after saying; "The illusion of motion is the "apparent" time dilation each observer "sees" of the others clock while in motion." You went on some tangent about the views of other members. Sorry, I wasn't there.
Your third point was about the ether.
You side stepped the forth point due to my bad grammar. If your limpness test is "complete" understanding, you to must also uphold such standards. I was in no way calling you unknowledgeable.
Your fifth point is were you set up your experiment. I have to ask, what equations will the computers be using once they receive the light signal from the in comming travelers do it can pre-set the "light travel time" (whatever that is) on C's clock. Why couldn't this experiment be scaled down and run in a partical accelerator?
In closing let me see if I have understood you correctly. You are trying to say each point has its own clock which ticks in accordance to its movement threw an ether (common rest point). So a second to a slow moving observer "takes longer" than a second to someone moving at high velocity (all being relative to the resting ether)? Have I misunderstood?

That's really what this is about for you, isn't it? You want to "win" over the scientific community that all disagree with you.

Ok, MacM. You win. Goodbye.

Click to expand...

Actually you just don't get it. It has nothing to do with me or with winning. It does have to do with getting you and all these other idiots to think instead of just reciting BS passed down over years.

You might have some credibility if you didn't consistently make the kinds of stupid errors you made in your first post to this thread (and in every other thread you have ever posted on this forum).

When it is clear that you don't understand the theory you are trying to criticise, and so continuously make falses claims about what it says, you just make yourself look like a fool. I think you have well and truly established on this forum that you are a fool. Fools never learn. They insist they are right regardless of how much the evidence stacks up against them. They ignore clear and logical explanations. They cannot be taught. Sound familiar?

...accelerate clocks "A" & "B" away from "C" at equal rates and for equal duration but in opposite directions, until they both achieve a velocity of 0.866c relative to "C".... However, what is important here is the fact that "A" & "B" have a relative velocity between themselves but there is no time dilation between them and they remain synchronized.

Click to expand...

My reply to stupidity:

James R said:

This [the synchronisation of A and B] is true only in the frame of C.

Relative to A, B is moving away from A at 0.990 c. Somebody in the rest frame of A sees B's clock ticking slower than A's.

And, of course, somebody in the rest from of B sees A's clock ticking slower than B's by the same factor.

Click to expand...

MacM's response:

MacM said:

The mistake I'm afraid is yours. You choose to ignore that "A" & "B" will remain synchronized in any common frame not just the "C" frame. The magnitude of the dilation is only relative to the "C" frame but the absolute tick rate is the same in all frames.

Click to expand...

That's what this thread boils down to.

MacM makes a stupid statement, then spends the rest of the thread asserting that it was right, despite proof to the contrary.

Counterexample: If C is a "common frame" according MacM, even though C has a different velocity relative to A than it has relative to B, then I can choose frame that travels, say, in the same direction as A but at half the speed and call that frame a "common frame". But in that frame, clocks A and B certainly are not synchronised.

Well ... I hardly know what to say. For the record, I didn't join this forum to try and change anyones mind. I came here to exchange ideas. I learned a long time ago that anyone can justify anything in there own minds. No matter what you or I say, in the end its up to the individual.

Click to expand...

I don't expect to change James R's mind or any indoctrinated individuals mind but I do hope to keep some from becoiming blinded by the BS that they propogate.

I don't know what kind of skirmishes or debates you have had with other members.

Click to expand...

Well I think it might be that I have been the most detested member a number of times but frankly that is because I have been able to sway a few over against the loud screams of James R and his followers.

All I know is what my equations tell me, this is all any of us can say.

Click to expand...

Understand I have not and do not assert that the math is inconsistant. I do assert that the formulas do not support James R's claims that the inherent reciprocity of a relative velocity between clocks as a cause for time dilation but only for the "Illusion of motion apparent dilation"

Your first point implys that I have deemed the "initial inertial common rest frame" as being universal. I do not recall making such a statement. As far as I know, every individual point in the universe is its own point of reference.

Click to expand...

It wasn't as much a statement as it was your question of me that I must believe it is universal. I replied just as you have that every inertial condition in the universe is it's own rest reference.

Though let me ask, if it's a "common rest frame" dosn't that imply some sort of universality?

Click to expand...

NO. It is the rest frame of the clock. If you are discussing more than one clock then it is the "Common" rest frame of the clocks. If they do not have a common rest frame from which to calculate time dilation then your formulas are worthless and have no meaning.

In your second point I couldn't understand your explanation after saying; "The illusion of motion is the "apparent" time dilation each observer "sees" of the others clock while in motion." You went on some tangent about the views of other members. Sorry, I wasn't there.

Click to expand...

James R claims the original concept of SR where relative velocity "Between" clocks produces time dilation as "Percieved" by two observers of clocks with relative motion is also physical reality. My point is that such perception while in motion is not supported by emperical data as being a physical reality since both clocks share relative velocity but only one becomes dilated if one has remained at rest.

And?. Did Einstein say there was no ether? No. Just the opposite. He said"There must be an ether". Note this speech was made in 1920. In other statements he has said "I have not proven there is no ether but only that we do not need to consider it".

Your fifth point is were you set up your experiment. I have to ask, what equations will the computers be using once they receive the light signal from the in comming travelers do it can pre-set the "light travel time" (whatever that is) on C's clock.

Click to expand...

Assume the start line known to be is 1 lyr from "C". Such that when the light signal is triggered by "A" & "B" passing that mile marker "C" knows upon receipt of the signal to pre-set it's clocks to 1 year since they zeroed their clocks. This synchronizes the start time of all clocks.

Why couldn't this experiment be scaled down and run in a partical accelerator? In closing let me see if I have understood you correctly. You are trying to say each point has its own clock which ticks in accordance to its movement threw an ether (common rest point). So a second to a slow moving observer "takes longer" than a second to someone moving at high velocity (all being relative to the resting ether)? Have I misunderstood?

Click to expand...

A little. Each clock with a relative velocity to it's initial rest frame reference ticks slower than it did while at rest. If another clock is at or remains in the initial rest frame then the accelerated clock now ticks slower than clocks in the rest frame.

So a second to a slow moving observer is "physically shorter" than a second to someone moving at high velocity.

Further I have not advocated an ether and if I did it would not be a fixed, static or at rest ether. It might be the CMB for which our motion in the universe HAS been calculated by using it as a reference.

That is not what SR says.
Every time you assert that two clocks not in the same place are synchronized in all reference frames, you are demonstrating a misunderstanding of special relativity.

Click to expand...

Sorry Pete this is not about simultaneity or any other aspect of relative motion or distance. It is strictly about a very limited condition.

When I said synched in a common frame I meant after first having been equally accelerated from a synchronized common rest frame and are once again in such a frame - not necesasrily the original rest frame but another common inertial frame.

Those clocks WILL be synchronized. To eliminate the affects you are attempting to interject is done by communicating accumulated information via digital means.

This becomes quite clear if you simplify and merely have the common frame be locally close and not introduce confusion by simultaneity and light signal travel or sight time between remote clocks.

You might have some credibility if you didn't consistently make the kinds of stupid errors you made in your first post to this thread (and in every other thread you have ever posted on this forum).

Click to expand...

Sorry James R but you repeating this false allegation does not make it so. You have yet to properly address any of these issue. Instead you interject things irrelevant to the issue and attempt to assault the messenger rather than show where the message was in error.

You have not shown ONE stupid error in the initial thread. You have asserted my stupidity but you certainly haven't shown it. Do so and I will conceed.

When it is clear that you don't understand the theory you are trying to criticise, and so continuously make falses claims about what it says, you just make yourself look like a fool. I think you have well and truly established on this forum that you are a fool. Fools never learn. They insist they are right regardless of how much the evidence stacks up against them. They ignore clear and logical explanations. They cannot be taught. Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

Go back and re-read James R. I haven't made any false claims about what the theory claims. You have not ever correctly addressed the issues raised. You simply repeaatedly make false slanderous innuendos about me and my posts without posting any valid criticisim. Oh you post struff but it is never relevant to the issue raised.

I continue here because a number of people have seen though your little act and I have have received PM's in the past congratulating me on the job I do. So your tatics do not intimidate me.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
...accelerate clocks "A" & "B" away from "C" at equal rates and for equal duration but in opposite directions, until they both achieve a velocity of 0.866c relative to "C".... However, what is important here is the fact that "A" & "B" have a relative velocity between themselves but there is no time dilation between them and they remain synchronized. ”

My reply to stupidity:
“ Originally Posted by James R
This [the synchronisation of A and B] is true only in the frame of C.

Relative to A, B is moving away from A at 0.990 c. Somebody in the rest frame of A sees B's clock ticking slower than A's.

And, of course, somebody in the rest from of B sees A's clock ticking slower than B's by the same factor. ”

Click to expand...

OK folks just how many times have you seen me tell James that this is NOT about what "A" or "B" "Sees". It is only about what emperical data showing a clock dilated (accumulated less time) after having had relative velocity. Not what one might "See" while in motion. This is what I mean by him posting irrelevant information and generating strawman attacks.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
The mistake I'm afraid is yours. You choose to ignore that "A" & "B" will remain synchronized in any common frame not just the "C" frame. The magnitude of the dilation is only relative to the "C" frame but the absolute tick rate is the same in all frames. ”

MacM makes a stupid statement, then spends the rest of the thread asserting that it was right, despite proof to the contrary.

Click to expand...

OK James just where is the stupid content of my above statement? You certainly haven't pointed it out and none is evident. Do you try to deny that two clocks synchronized at a common rest, then equally accelerated to a new "equal" inertial velocity are not still in synch?

Don't start with "A" sees or B sees because that varies with the vectors of the respective accelerations. The tick rate is set by the new velocity regardless of vector and the clock physical tick rates DO NOT vary according to observer perspective.

Counterexample: If C is a "common frame" according MacM, even though C has a different velocity relative to A than it has relative to B, then I can choose frame that travels, say, in the same direction as A but at half the speed and call that frame a "common frame". But in that frame, clocks A and B certainly are not synchronised.

Click to expand...

I have never claimed they would be. I have claimed in fact that they had equal acceleration and new velocity to "C"

However, in your example you will find that each clock will be dilated according to IT's veloicty to "C" and has no bearing on the relative velocity between "A" & "B".